Gut Reaction: Browns trade Trent Richardson to Colts

Ted BartlettSep 19, 2013 5:30 PM

Happy Thursday, friends. The Twitter world was set ablaze yesterday afternoon right as I was getting ready to attend an assessment where I was evaluated for competency to teach accounting and cost accounting to college students, as a side gig.

I did well, I think, but half the time, I was thinking about how interesting the Trent Richardson trade was, and what it said about the two teams that made it.

For the Colts, it reinforced the idea that they’re all about winning now, and that they don’t value draft picks very highly. Remember, they traded their 2013 second-rounder for Vontae Davis last year too. There are a couple of risks to this approach, and the main one exists because of the (still relatively new) CBA.

When you trade for a guy like Trent Richardson during his second year, you’ve foregone one low-cost season from the four that you’ll ever get from a top player during his prime. You’ll have to extend Richardson (assuming he’s worth it) a season earlier than you’d have to extend a current-year draft pick. If you do that too often, you can end up with salary cap trouble more easily and quickly than you can if you “build through the draft.”

The other risk is if Richardson never works out as a player. The NFL team that knows him best just got rid of him, and that doesn’t happen if they have a really good internal evaluation of Richardson as a player. Right now, the perception out there is so strong that this a big-time talent, but the reality is that Richardson has shown very little yet. He’s done so behind one of the better run-blocking lines in the NFL, and he now joins a team with a lousy offensive line (albeit a much better QB).

If you ask me, Jim Brown had it right: Richardson was, is, and will continue to be very overrated. All over Twitter yesterday, Browns fans freaked out, and said what if he’s the next Adrian Peterson? Let me save you the suspense: he’s not. He’s got decent talent, but he fooled everybody by benefiting from the Alabama Effect.

I’ve said this in the past, and I’ll say it again. I’m always very suspicious of Alabama football players, because they tend to underachieve at shockingly high rates in the NFL. They look better than they really are in college, because they are surrounded by the most talented teammates, and because they have the best coaching and schemes.

Look at the following list. These are all of the Alabama players drafted in the first three rounds between 2009 and 2012:

Yr

#

Team

Player

Pos

Notes

'09

1-6

CIN

Andre Smith

OT

One good season in four, during contract year

'09

3-74

SF

Glen Coffee

RB

Played sparingly one season, retired abruptly, and is now a paratrooper

'09

3-76

HOU

Antoine Caldwell

OL

Started 19 games in four years. Now out of NFL; one pick before Louis Vasquez

'09

3-95

ARI

Rashad Johnson

S

Special teamer and backup safety for Cardinals

'10

1-8

OAK

Rolando McClain

LB

Poor play on field, significant trouble off it, out of NFL

'10

1-20

HOU

Kareem Jackson

CB

Below-average starter for Texans

'10

2-50

KC

Javier Arenas

CB

Four years as subpar nickelback for KC; traded to ARI for FB Anthony Sherman in '13.

'10

2-57

BAL

Terrance Cody

NT

Completely average rotation NT for Baltimore; little impact

'10

3-98

ATL

Mike Johnson

OG

One start in 18 games during three-year career

'11

1-3

BUF

Marcell Dareus

DT

Pretty good player who'd go no higher than 12th in a re-draft

'11

1-6

ATL

Julio Jones

WR

Top-notch WR who lived up to his billing; attributes were obvious

'11

1-25

SEA

James Carpenter

OL

Struggled when healthy, usually hurt; 16 starts/games in two+ seasons

'11

1-28

NO

Mark Ingram

RB

Lousy for the most part; still plays in rotation for some reason.

'12

1-3

CLE

Trent Richardson

RB

3.5 YPC on 298 pro carries; often nicked up in young career

'12

1-6

TB

Mark Barron

S

Starter for Bucs; still waiting to see an impact

'12

1-17

CIN

Dre Kirkpatrick

CB

No impact so far; four career tackles

'12

1-25

NE

Dont'a Hightower

LB

Rotation LB; nothing special

'12

2-35

BAL

Courtney Upshaw

OLB

Touted as a pass-rusher; not that at all (1.5 sacks in career)

That’s a bunch of underachievers (of varying degrees), right? The only exception is Jones, who, as I mentioned, was the only player with athletic attributes that really jumped off the screen. The rest of these guys were pretty good athletes, and good college players, who looked better than they were. To be clear, I'm not denigrating the Alabama program; I'm actually crediting them with maximizing their assets and abilities, while functioning as the best-run college program. I just am reluctant to want to draft their players into the NFL, where the advantages they've enjoyed will disapper.

I’ll say it right now – I am not in love with Richardson, and I never have been. I thought the Browns should have taken Ryan Tannehill, and I said so at the time. Tannehill has improved a lot from Year 1 to Year 2, and it won’t be long before he’s being mentioned with Andrew Luck and the rest of the young star QBs.

I want to delve more deeply into the Browns here, because I think they’re the more interesting player. For one thing, I have a lot of friends who are Browns fans, and they’re all apoplectic. For another thing, having read his writing for years, I feel like I have some insight into the way GM Michael Lombardi thinks.

Let’s start with the fan angle. I have a former co-worker named Meridith who’s from Cleveland, but now lives in the Mobile, Alabama area. She writes about football frequently, and she has a pretty entertaining style. I always enjoy checking out her blog. Yesterday, she said she was going to become a Saints fan because the Browns traded Trent Richardson. Meridith is a big Alabama fan, so this is doubly painful for her, but that's a huge step.

My old friend Matt, whom I’ve known as a Cleveland fan for about 25 years back to my Norwich, CT days, is talking about burning all of his Browns gear, and getting on the Bengals bandwagon.

I have a lot of other Cleveland-based friends who have been variously cursing out the team on Facebook, in terms that were almost scary. They really thought that Trent Richardson was going to make them a winner (Delusionally, but whatever. Hope doesn’t cost anything.).

I’ll tell you this about Michael Lombardi. He’s been trying to get back into the NFL for several years, so he knows how hard it is to get a job, and he had a long time to think about strategy once he got there. Success doesn't favor the meek, and I think he decided that he was going to do things his way, since this is pretty clearly his last and best shot.

In April, the Browns traded their fourth- and fifth-round picks in the 2013 Draft for third- and fourth-rounders in 2014, respectively. The idiot local media grumbled (Tony Grossi, the local grand poobah, has a personal vendetta against Lombardi).

Now, he’s traded Richardson for a first-rounder in 2014. If you don’t like Richardson, this makes all the sense in the world. The guy’s performance has been underwhelming so far, but that’s just on the field. You have to wonder whether the new regime saw things they didn’t like in the guy in practice and in other behind-the-scenes settings too.

One thing that Lombardi said several years ago that always stuck out to me is that he considers durability to be a skill for football players. Some players know how to keep themselves healthy, and some are always banged up. He doesn’t value the ones who are always banged up highly. That basically describes Richardson’s NFL career so far.

I think that the Browns’ braintrust (consisting of team president Joe Banner, Lombardi, and head coach Rob Chudzinski) were cautiously optimistic heading into this season. I think that’s been tempered somewhat by starting off the season 0-2, and even more by the injury to QB Brandon Weeden. There's also the fact that the Browns struggled mightily on offense in both games.

I also think the Browns understand the counterintuitive (but crystal clear) reality that it’s strategically better to be 2-14 than it is to be 7-9, particularly when you view an upcoming draft to be a strong one. You don’t think it helped the Broncos to go 4-12 in 2010, and get the opportunity to draft Von Miller in 2011?

If you don’t love this player, and if you don’t want to go 7-9, and if you know you’ll probably never get a #1 for Richardson again, you do the deal. Andy Benoit has this exactly right:

Unfair to claim the #Browns are tanking season. They got a great offer for a 950-yd RB. Smart move.

You play for 2014, and you continue to load up on draft picks. (Honestly, in terms of ability to play football well right now, Willis McGahee is no downgrade from Richardson.) The Browns can finish turning over their roster with one more draft, and they’re practically guaranteed to have a good shot at one of the many strong QB prospects coming in.

Since 1999, the Browns have been managed by dopes, and they’ve consistently been impatient and mismanaged the team. Now, they make a move to delay gratification, and be patient, while trying to time a bunch of young talent to grow together simultaneously, and their fans go apeshit. SAME OLD BROWNS!

No, actually this is a brand new approach for the Browns. They’re doing the right thing by ignoring the negative comments from the media and fans, and fear of those has consistently been the undoing of the franchise since 1999.

As for the wannabe draftnik dumbasses on Twitter, let me make a point I’ve made a number of times over the years. Sunk costs are 100% irrelevant to the decisions we face today. This is not debatable; intelligent people understand this, and fools dwell on sunk costs. (A sunk cost is any cost incurred in the past that can’t be directly recovered today, for the moron on Twitter who claimed that I shouldn’t call these sunk costs “sunk costs.”)

A lot of chatter focused on the fact that Richardson represented either the third pick in the 2012 Draft, or the fourth, 118th, 139th, and 211th, because Cleveland traded those picks to move up one spot. How could they trade all those picks for a 2014 first-rounder that would probably be in the twenties?

The answer is because now Trent Richardson is a football player with evidence of his skills on NFL game tape, and it doesn’t matter what picks were used to acquire him. Draft picks lose value and meaning the minute you use them, because they can’t be recovered. They’re derivative assets, like an oil future contract. Eventually, if you own the contract on the specified date, you get some physical oil delivered to you. It is completely meaningless what the contract was worth a month ago, because you didn’t sell it then. Now you have a barrel of Light Sweet Crude in your yard, and it’s worth what it’s worth.

Exercised draft picks are sunk costs, and they don’t matter unless you’re an idiot. It would be nice if the people who made those picks did a better job of it, but the clock can’t be turned back, and what is done is done. Frankly, one of the benefits of the new CBA, with its lower rookie pay scale, is that you can move on more easily from a mistake. Do you think that the Jaguars will hesitate to cut Blaine Gabbert, and draft somebody else in 2014?

Trent Richardson may still end up being a really good player, but particularly after seeing him in the NFL, I have serious doubts. Yeah, he had to run against a lot of eight-man boxes, but so do all of the best RBs. He hasn’t shown the ability to defeat the extra guy himself, like an Adrian Peterson or Marshawn Lynch can do.

To my friends in brown: I’m not trying to troll you here. Trust me, the smartest commentatorson footballalmost universally like this trade for the Browns. The dumber ones don’t like it, because they’re the dumber ones. I certainly include Grossi and Mary Kay Cabot (and Peter King) in that mix. The local assclowns get clicks by bringing it back to your season tickets, and your hard-earned money, and 1964, and all the rest of the emotional appeals.

Stop with the woe-is-me Cleveland sports fan mentality, and have some patience with the new regime. I know that’s a lot to ask, after 14 years of patience, but you can’t logically hold past failures against people who didn’t make them. What Banner/Lombardi/Chudzinski et al are showing is that they have a plan.

I believe that it is the right plan, and the question is whether the quality of the execution will match the quality of the plan. I tend to think the Browns are in better hands than they’ve been in since the Belichick days.

1. I’m not in the arguing business, I’m in the saying what I think business.
2. I get my information from my eyes.

You say he hasn't shown the ability to defeat the extra man himself like AP or Marshawn. Well, I'm just gonna go ahead and say you're pulling that out of thin air. He leads all RBs in PFF's Elusive Rating, which is designed to capture precisely that ability to make a guy miss.It's not a perfect stat - a lot of being a good runner has to do with setting your runs up and hitting the right lanes so that defenders don't even have a chance to make the tackle - but I do think you're just wrong about that. Richardson is pretty awesome when it comes to making defenders miss, whether it's with power or later movement. Dude balls.

Posted by Elephant. on 2013-09-21 17:59:52

Let's see what kind of run/pass split they have before people get too excited. Pep Hamilton was Andrew Luck's OC @ Stanford in 2011 when they set a school record for points and Luck shattered Elway's touchdown record. I have a hard time believing he would have gotten the job if Luck didn't feel comfortable with him.

If you want to tell somebody how to build a winning franchise in the NFL you better get Jim Harbaugh and Pete Carroll, the two coaches from last year's NFC Championship Game on the phone.

The problem is that the current Colts GM and coaching staff are determined to make Indy a power running team. Grigson and Pagano have said so since they took the reins in 2012. Last year the OC, Arians, wanted a vertical passing game. But the new OC, Pep Hamilton, is trying to instal the same kind of offense he had at Stanford. That means he insists on having a fullback, Stanley Havili, a lot of time in there, which ends up putting the Colts second most explosive WR, TY HIlton, on the sidelines a staggering amount of times (against Oakland, Hilton played 445 of the offensive snaps, while Havili played 47%).The Colts also use formations with 0 or 1 WR on the field, with predictably disastrous results (4.4 yards per play, compared to 6.2 yards per play for all other formations).

In other words, it shows that the Colts really are committed to a pound-the-ball, stop-the-run philosophy under this regime (so much so that the first reaction of the Indy beat reporter after the Richardson trade was to tweet "i'm starting to believe what they've been saying--run-first, power-running team. OK, OK. i get it"), and that´s not the way to build a winning franchise in today´s NFL, especially not when you´ve been gifted with Luck at the QB position.

Posted by Goéland on 2013-09-20 18:05:30

The Browns would have been far better off keeping Tom Heckert, but their step backward is our gain.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-09-20 12:34:17

Lombardi didn't draft Richardson, though, right? That was my point, not that there was no historical tie to the organization.

Posted by Jason Chestnut on 2013-09-20 11:37:45

Vardell was more of a fullback, not a traditional RB like Richardson.

As for today, we'll see if Lombardi will make a difference. The Browns have been a major joke since they returned. I heard something about how they allegedly laughed at Kosar in 99 for suggesting that they bring back Belichick, and then they hire Chris Palmer? Give me a break. He hasn't been HC since.

Then, they drafted Tim Couch, which was very stupid. They should have traded that pick to NO for what they gave Washington if they could have.

Posted by John on 2013-09-20 10:18:49

In a sense, it is the same front office group in that Lombardi is back for another try. I don't know what to say about Chudzinski, except he was more or less the guy they had to settle for after Chip Kelly got them all sexed up this off season. I'm not sure if Skimmin' Jimmy Haslam and his mountain of debt is an upgrade over Al Lerner's worthless scion, but it seems like a lateral move at best.

Here's one of the reactions to the return of Lombardi from the guys over @ Cleveland Frowns.

Why does this indicate a commitment to a run first philosophy instead of a balanced offense? The Colts attempted over 39 passes a game last year with a rookie quarterback, the most highly rated rookie quarterback in a decade. Wayne, Hilton, Fleener and Heyward-Bey comprise a reasonably talented receiving corps, unfortunately they lost Dwayne Allen, but there are plenty of targets on that team. Richardson also had 51 receptions last year.

What am I missing here? Do these panic stricken Colts fans really believe the acquisition of Trent Richardson is going to magically transform Chuck Pagano into Chuck Knox overnight? It makes no sense.

That division is winnable, even with the Colts horrible defense. The Texans are still tough, but they have their own problems. I'll tell you this much, if any team in that division was going to trade their starting running back, it should have been Houston. Arian Foster's been run extremely hard the last few years and Ben Tate is more than capable of filling his shoes.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-09-20 09:41:34

You said exactly what I was thinking regarding this trade, Ted. The knee-jerk reaction is to call the Browns stupid, and talk about 'the same old Browns'. But I've tried to point out that this is not the same old front office, and they are doing things the right way. You can't blame this group for drafting Richardson, and they saw a way to maximize value of one of their assets and jumped. Good move.

Unless TR becomes a total stud (not seeing it), the Colts lost.

The one thing I don't see discussed is how uncommon this kind of regular-season trade is these days. Whoever said it before me was right -- Indy should have just signed Willis.

And good luck to Willis, by the way. Until you have to play the Broncos.

Posted by Jason Chestnut on 2013-09-20 07:16:26

I firmly believe it´s a horrible trade. A lot of Colts fans think this makes the Colts contenders right away and for the foreseeable future, while what I consider the most informed sector of Colts fans regard this as a commitment to the run-first philosophy, and thus deem this a serious setback for the Colts franchise. Check the twitter of Nate Dunlevy, in my opinion the most knowledgeable of Colts fans.

Posted by Goéland on 2013-09-20 01:27:05

I see this as a trade that helps both teams. Richardson hasn't really impressed yet, but he's far from a Mark Ingram type bust and he's only played 17 games in his career. Last year, he was never quite healthy and he was playing in a Pat Shurmur offense beside a shaky rookie quarterback. He still has the potential to be a very effective power back in this league. I think he and Luck should complement each other pretty nicely and his presence should make Bradshaw better, too. Whether he'll return first round value is debatable, but there's no doubt in my mind he makes Indy a better team.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-09-20 01:10:29

It is nice to see McGahee back on the field. Hope he does well there unless he is running against the Broncos. At first I thought the Cleveland FO was crazy with this trade. Thanks for your perspective. Makes sense now. This trade also gives the new regime more ammunition to rebuild the team the way they want to. Rarely does a new coach and FO have more than 2 years to show progress in today's NFL. As you mentioned - Lombardi is giving it his best shot. Thanks, Ted.

Posted by BlackKnigh on 2013-09-19 23:42:57

Lombardi wasn't ever fully calling the shots in his first run in Cleveland. Bill Belichick had final authority. Actually, Lombardi was key to what became known as the Patriot Way of scouting, because he was charged with leading a convergence project between the methods and terminology that the pro scouts used, and what the college scouts used. Belichick wanted one language, where he could compare a college player to a pro.

As for the draft picks in that era, yeah there were some duds. Maybe Lombardi remembered the drafting of Tommy Vardell in the top 10, and that's what told him running backs are rarely worth it that high.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-19 22:43:30

I think so. They may just really love Richardson, but in terms of roster management, they should have just signed McGahee.

Posted by Ted Bartlett on 2013-09-19 22:40:48

So this was a bad trade for the Colts right? Why wouldn't they have just picked up McGahee?

Posted by Cainos on 2013-09-19 21:19:32

I'm kind of surprised so many Browns fans are gripping. I got the impression that a large percentage of them never quite forgave Richardson for not being RGIII.

I agree that this move makes sense for the Browns. I also agree Tony Grossi is an idiot (Mary Kay Cabot is usually a team cheerleader, so I'm sure her criticism is mild), but Mike Lombardi's first run in Cleveland was really poor. Multiple draft picks won't help if much if he doesn't do a better job of drafting this time around.

Posted by Yahmule on 2013-09-19 20:41:19

I wasn't a fan of the trade initially, but that had more to do with the fact that I'm generally used to seeing franchises who are rebuilding, waiting a few games into the season before they start making moves, especially with players that your fans happen to like. While not entirely comparable, we all know that it made sense for the Broncos to trade Brandon Lloyd and that worked out pretty well in the long term, but had the Broncos traded him two games into the season, you can imagine how hostile the reaction would have been at that point.

With that said, the more I've thought about it and the more I read what people such as Ted, Bill Barnwell and Jason LaCanfora have written, it does make sense -- even if I believe the Colts probably still would have given up a lot to get Richardson six weeks into the season. If they had waited a couple more weeks and gotten two second rounders for Richardson, it's still great value for the Browns.

Regardless, thanks for the writeup, Ted, and giving some perspective that causes people like me to step back and realize that my initial reaction to the trade wasn't the right reaction.

Posted by Bob Morris on 2013-09-19 19:01:06

Colts lost their starting RB Vick Ballard a week or tow ago so that should be part of the discussion.

Posted by bradley on 2013-09-19 18:33:20

This is bad for the Colts. They really need a Left Tackle. How do you get a great LT. Usually you draft one in the first round.

Posted by RockyMtnThunder on 2013-09-19 18:32:30

I agree about Willis. I think the Browns' locker room (and management) will be pleasantly surprised by what he brings.

Posted by carsonic on 2013-09-19 18:28:10

"but half the time, I was thinking about how interesting the Trent Richardson trade was"

I work in accounting. I often day dream too. More often than not.

Posted by Hank Mardukis on 2013-09-19 18:09:27

Nice take as usual Ted. I think Trent Richardson can be a decent back but he's got to stay healthy. The little bit I've seen of him leads me to believe that he got away with taking on tacklers directly in both high school and college, but the pro game is much faster and more physical - a back has to figure out how avoid or lessen contact as much as possible because they get the hell kicked out of them all season long. I actually think McGahee will actually prove to be an upgrade (provided he hangs on to the ball) - and besides that, I like Willis and really hope he succeeds there. Thanks!